A Potential and Rather Surprising Admission?

[EthanT]

So, as most of you are probably aware, Sam Harris had a new blog out on the whole NDE, EA thing.

Bernardo wrote a great blog in response to Harris and I will leave all that for another thread, or place.

What I was specifically interested in for this thread was the following quote from Harris' blog:

Certain subjects even say that they have learned facts while traveling beyond their bodies that would otherwise have been impossible to know—for instance, a secret told by a dead relative, the truth of which was later confirmed. Of course, reports of this kind seem especially vulnerable to self-deception, if not conscious fraud. There is another problem, however: Even if true, such phenomena might suggest only that the human mind possesses powers of extrasensory perception (e.g. clairvoyance or telepathy). This would be a very important discovery, but it wouldn’t demonstrate the survival of death.

If certain veridical components of an NDE are verified (i.e. information is obtained say in AWARE, or something similar) it seems to me the above quote indicates that skeptics are probably going to fall back on the hope for some materialistic and solely brain-based description of psi that will save them from the rather unsavory (i.e. spiritual) aspects of the NDE phenomenon.

If so, what kind of model are they going to propose? What kind of mechanism in the brain will be solely responsible for what would be, for all intents and purposes, a non-local information retrieval?

Also, what is the trend in the skeptic community, in general, for being open to the possibility of psi? What I usually hear is that psi is ridiculous and all the data/experiments are either in error, or even downright fraudulent. So, I guess that's why the above quote surprised me a bit.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by EthanT

If certain veridical components of an NDE are verified (i.e. information is obtained say in AWARE, or something similar) it seems to me the above quote indicates that skeptics are probably going to fall back on the hope for some materialistic and solely brain-based description of psi that will save them from the rather unsavory (i.e. spiritual) aspects of the NDE phenomenon.

It's not about falling back on anything. It's that demonstrating one area of psi to a high degree of confidence does not automatically validate every other hypothesis. You've got to examine each independently.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by EthanT

If so, what kind of model are they going to propose? What kind of mechanism in the brain will be solely responsible for what would be, for all intents and purposes, a non-local information retrieval?

Watch out when using the term nonlocal. It's nonlocal in the sense of retrieving remote information, but not necessarily in the quantum mechanical sense.

One possibility is that information is stored in some sort of cosmic repository that we can sense. As Arouet said, though, this does not mean we have an afterlife.

Another possibility is that QM entanglement is a hell of a lot more powerful than it seems. But I really cannot imagine how you and I can become entangled so that I can read your mind.

Both of those problems have a stunningly complex issue of information encoding. I get signals from your brain, but how do I know what they mean?

~~ Paul

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Watch out when using the term nonlocal. It's nonlocal in the sense of retrieving remote information, but not necessarily in the quantum mechanical sense.
~~ Paul

Actually, to a physicist, non-local doesn't even necessarily imply QM is being talked about.

Non-locality comes up in other areas of physics, as well. It's only at the pop-sci level that that two are so equated with each other.

[JCearley]

Originally Posted by EthanT

Also, what is the trend in the skeptic community, in general, for being open to the possibility of psi? What I usually hear is that psi is ridiculous and all the data/experiments are either in error, or even downright fraudulent. So, I guess that's why the above quote surprised me a bit.

It should be hated, never discussed, because the currently understood mathematics of physics do not support it and anyone who says otherwise is a pseudoscientist and/or a fraud. A hypothetical ten thousand testimonies by trained observers at the same time, is simply a case of mass hypnosis which can only be created by charlatans--an amazing feat, but if they claim that ability we will deny it too. However, a single notable skeptic has the observation power of the entire universe worth of truth and may dismiss anyone with nothing more than an allegation with no external verification.

From what I see thus far, Harris wants to believe in Psi. Since he's used to dealing with hyper-religious nuts (or so he says himself) he's likely been around the blind dogma and "just believe" mentality that he wants to see hard science on the matter; he also has to maintain the appearance of being a super-skeptic to save face with his primary community bracket. I imagine if you showed him something substantial--more than "well we don't know, but materialism is obviously wrong!"--he'd probably nod slowly.

[Buggy713]

Originally Posted by EthanT

So, as most of you are probably aware, Sam Harris had a new blog out on the whole NDE, EA thing.

Bernardo wrote a great blog in response to Harris and I will leave all that for another thread, or place.

What I was specifically interested in for this thread was the following quote from Harris' blog:



If certain veridical components of an NDE are verified (i.e. information is obtained say in AWARE, or something similar) it seems to me the above quote indicates that skeptics are probably going to fall back on the hope for some materialistic and solely brain-based description of psi that will save them from the rather unsavory (i.e. spiritual) aspects of the NDE phenomenon.

If so, what kind of model are they going to propose? What kind of mechanism in the brain will be solely responsible for what would be, for all intents and purposes, a non-local information retrieval?

Also, what is the trend in the skeptic community, in general, for being open to the possibility of psi? What I usually hear is that psi is ridiculous and all the data/experiments are either in error, or even downright fraudulent. So, I guess that's why the above quote surprised me a bit.

Actually I think it is a bit of a cop out, if hits come from AWARE ( they are studying people coming from cardiac artest) I don't see how you can evoke a brain based psi mechancism, the fact is that people are going to be floating around while they are either clinically dead or billions of neurons are going to waste. And also I don't see that there can be a brain based psi mechancism, quantum entagelment is a crummy candidiate because there is no info transfer. So are electromagentics waves that are generated by the brain.

The True Nature of Psi

This is a good article on it. I think that the burden of proof is on the skeptics if they think that brain based mechanisms should be taken seriously for such results on AWARE

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Buggy713

Actually I think it is a bit of a cop out, if hits come from AWARE ( they are studying people coming from cardiac artest) I don't see how you can evoke a brain based psi mechancism, the fact is that people are going to be floating around while they are either clinically dead or billions of neurons are going to waste. And also I don't see that there can be a brain based psi mechancism,\

I agree - it is a bit of a cop out. But, it would certainly be an interesting turn of events if a study like AWARE actually gave more credence/awareness to the ESP/clairvoyance phenomenon within the mainstream (even if it is done in a way to avoid spiritual/survival issues). At that point, it could also force the issue of finding a theoretical model for psi that does work, and this may very well bring out into the open how crappy the current materialistic models of the brain will be for that.

Originally Posted by Buggy713

quantum entagelment is a crummy candidiate because there is no info transfer.

I suspect we currently have a very limited understanding of information, in general. We usually take information transfer to mean some sort of conventional signal - traveling from point A to point B through space and linear in time. With entanglement, we initially like to view the two (perhaps vastly) spatially separated particles as somehow separate and independent things, but the entanglement phenomenon shows they are actually still a combined QM system. The information for that system is contained across space, whether or not the system can be used to send a signal faster than c. Indeed, if you take Roger Penrose's view seriously, the particles are not only entangled across space, but also across time. Likewise, for the information contained within the system.

This is also the view Aharnov had when coming up with the Time Symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics (TSQM, which Penrose is a fan of, apparently). If all the information for a QM system is not contained in it's past , which perhaps is what leaves us with only a probabilistic interpretation/formulation, where could the rest of the information be found? The future!

"“Nature is trying to tell us that there is a difference between two seemingly identical particles with different fates, but that difference can only be found in the future,” he says. If we’re willing to unshackle our minds from our preconceived view that time moves in only one direction, he argues, then it is entirely possible to set up a deterministic theory of quantum mechanics."

And, TSQM does indeed have an additional state vector that propagates backwards in time, allowing for a type of "retro-causal influence". Once again, this does not allow a conventional type of signal, or conventional type of information transfer, to be sent into the past, but if the state vector has any reality to it (i.e. it is ontic, as they say) then it really raises the mystery of information to another level.

It's all suggestive of the fact that information is not restricted by time and space (as I think the all of the psi experiments are pretty much hinting at, rather strongly even), and the way we like to originally think of information transfer is probably a rather limited view. I personally think information is one of the biggest mysteries to reality we still need to solve. But, it is a term we use in everyday language so often (in reference to books, computers, etc) that we either forget that, or never realized it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Buggy713

The True Nature of Psi

This is a good article on it. I think that the burden of proof is on the skeptics if they think that brain based mechanisms should be taken seriously for such results on AWARE

Thanks I'll check out that article

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by JCearley

From what I see thus far, Harris wants to believe in Psi. Since he's used to dealing with hyper-religious nuts (or so he says himself) he's likely been around the blind dogma and "just believe" mentality that he wants to see hard science on the matter; he also has to maintain the appearance of being a super-skeptic to save face with his primary community bracket. I imagine if you showed him something substantial--more than "well we don't know, but materialism is obviously wrong!"--he'd probably nod slowly.

This is the impression I have been getting of Harris.

It seems like all the big name skeptics/atheists have at least one quote attributed to them about the validity of ESP, and the strength of the data, but it is quickly dismissed after that.

For Harris to even slightly suggest ESP/psi as an explanation for results that might come out of a study like AWARE, seems like a bit of an extra step (in a good direction) to me.

I think they're going to be able to argue with AWARE that there might have been some brain activity, so if we get positive results (i.e hits), what was outlined in my OP could be a likely outcome.

Of course, if they don't resort to information leakage, etc first ;-)

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by EthanT

Of course, if they don't resort to information leakage, etc first ;-)

You say "they". Wouldn't you like to rule out information leakage? Parnia himself has said that the current protocols are vulnerable to that and that future studies would be needed with tighter protocols to rule that out.

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Arouet

You say "they". Wouldn't you like to rule out information leakage? Parnia himself has said that the current protocols are vulnerable to that and that future studies would be needed with tighter protocols to rule that out.

Sure, but it's supposed to be a well designed test as far as that goes, so I wouldn't ignore the potential implications of positive results in the meantime while we design even better protocols, and it doesn't sound like Sam Harris would either.

However, I bet a lot of pop-sci level atheists/skeptics would. Time will tell.